Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Shame on Doug Pederson


Recommended Posts

One other thing about Manning. One of the few times the Raven’s beat him was on that lucky Hail Mary by Flacco in the 2012 playoffs. The Bronco’s were better that year, but the Raven’s were lucky that day. 
In a post game loss that had to be extremely painful , Manning went over to the Raven’s locker room with his son to congratulate Ray Lewis. What athlete does that kind of thing anymore ? It’s the epitome of class, sportsmanship , and respect for the game that Peyton Manning stands for. Unitas was the same way. 
 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 172
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Anytime the Cowboys get eliminated from the playoffs it is funny to me. 

There really should be a limit on messing up a game like Pederson did tonight. That was disgraceful and made absolutely no sense. League should fine Philly and take a draft pick away. That was really

They're entirely baseless, and the preponderance of available evidence makes that clear. You're saying 'there's evidence we don't have access to,' and that's also baseless. The presumed existence of e

1 hour ago, Jared Cisneros said:

There was a lot of turmoil between Gase and Gregg Williams, I heard Gase fired him as a scapegoat before he was getting fired. I'm fine with any team trying to tank honestly. Most of the time it doesn't work anyway, and if it does, then you are still sacrificing a year of the team in order to try to win in the future. Most of the time, it's for a generational QB, which is understandable. The Eagles were just moving up 3 spots from 9 to 6, which will probably get them a slightly better talent and save them some draft capital if they wanted to move up.

 

You say most of the time it doesn't work. I say most of the time that fans/media accuse a team of trying to tank, the team isn't actually trying to tank. Tanking isn't rocket science. The Jets only won 2 games because they were trying to win. 

 

I don't like it, I think it goes counter to the competitive balance in the league. But there's no explicit rule against it, so I don't have strong feelings about it if/when it does happen (like maybe last night). 

 

I reject the theories about the 2011 Colts because it's really obvious to me that they're baseless, yet people repeat them as if they're definitely true.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

You say most of the time it doesn't work. I say most of the time that fans/media accuse a team of trying to tank, the team isn't actually trying to tank. Tanking isn't rocket science. The Jets only won 2 games because they were trying to win. 

 

I don't like it, I think it goes counter to the competitive balance in the league. But there's no explicit rule against it, so I don't have strong feelings about it if/when it does happen (like maybe last night). 

 

I reject the theories about the 2011 Colts because it's really obvious to me that they're baseless, yet people repeat them as if they're definitely true.

The Jets won two games because Adam Gase thought he was coaching for his job at that point, so he opened up the playbook. The Browns win was easier because 4 of their receivers were out due to the Corona. 

 

The theories aren't baseless about the 2011 Colts, the general population is just unable to prove them unless someone spills the beans about it. The Eagles obvious 1 game tank may be the first step for the casual fans to start figuring out that it happens across the league. Even CBSSports wrote an article about it.

 

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/why-doug-pederson-broke-the-tanking-rules-everyone-with-a-jersey-or-headset-is-supposed-to-give-it-their-all/

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

The theories aren't baseless about the 2011 Colts, the general population is just unable to prove them unless someone spills the beans about it.

 

They're entirely baseless, and the preponderance of available evidence makes that clear. You're saying 'there's evidence we don't have access to,' and that's also baseless. The presumed existence of evidence is not evidence.

 

There are circumstantial theories that do not hold up to scrutiny. There's nothing more than that.

 

Quote

The Jets won two games because Adam Gase thought he was coaching for his job at that point, so he opened up the playbook. The Browns win was easier because 4 of their receivers were out due to the Corona. 

 

You don't think Adam Gase knew he was coaching for his job all year? What about when they started out 0-3, 0-6? You think he just woke up in December and said 'dang, we haven't won a game, I better start taking this seriously or else I'm gonna get fired'? He coached for his job every week.

 

If there was a directive from any level to tank for the #1 pick, the Jets would not have suddenly woke up at the end of the season to try to win a couple games. The front office could have shut down Darnold and Maye and whoever else their best players are, and there would have been nothing Gase could have done about it.

 

They tried to win every week, and were only good enough to win twice. It's that simple (Occam's razor).

 

Now, if evidence comes to light moving forward, we should examine that evidence and possibly reach a different conclusion on the matter. If Gase or his staff start leaking reports that the Jets were tanking, or players suggest the front office wasn't exactly trying to win, or anything like that, then we take a look at that. Basically, any of the things that have NOT come out about the 2011 Colts in the last nine years.

 

Also, the Eagles move last night probably wouldn't even be the most egregious "tanking" related move. Before the 2019 season, everyone was convinced the Dolphins were tanking for Tua because they got rid of a bunch of veteran players in the offseason, mostly for draft picks. They were clearly rebuilding, but then they won five games and wound up with the fifth pick in the draft. Are you telling me they foresaw Tua getting injured and dropping?

 

The Browns in 2016 was probably the most egregious example ever. If we want to say a team tanked on purpose, it was probably that team.

 

This isn't a secret, nor is it new.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

They're entirely baseless, and the preponderance of available evidence makes that clear. You're saying 'there's evidence we don't have access to,' and that's also baseless. The presumed existence of evidence is not evidence.

 

There are circumstantial theories that do not hold up to scrutiny. There's nothing more than that.

 

 

You don't think Adam Gase knew he was coaching for his job all year? What about when they started out 0-3, 0-6? You think he just woke up in December and said 'dang, we haven't won a game, I better start taking this seriously or else I'm gonna get fired'? He coached for his job every week.

 

If there was a directive from any level to tank for the #1 pick, the Jets would not have suddenly woke up at the end of the season to try to win a couple games. The front office could have shut down Darnold and Maye and whoever else their best players are, and there would have been nothing Gase could have done about it.

 

They tried to win every week, and were only good enough to win twice. It's that simple (Occam's razor).

 

Now, if evidence comes to light moving forward, we should examine that evidence and possibly reach a different conclusion on the matter. If Gase or his staff start leaking reports that the Jets were tanking, or players suggest the front office wasn't exactly trying to win, or anything like that, then we take a look at that. Basically, any of the things that have NOT come out about the 2011 Colts in the last nine years.

 

Also, the Eagles move last night probably wouldn't even be the most egregious "tanking" related move. Before the 2019 season, everyone was convinced the Dolphins were tanking for Tua because they got rid of a bunch of veteran players in the offseason, mostly for draft picks. They were clearly rebuilding, but then they won five games and wound up with the fifth pick in the draft. Are you telling me they foresaw Tua getting injured and dropping?

 

The Browns in 2016 was probably the most egregious example ever. If we want to say a team tanked on purpose, it was probably that team.

 

This isn't a secret, nor is it new.

I'm saying tanking is hard. It's literally as hard as going undefeated to do it perfectly (both have only happened twice in NFL history). Most of the time, a tankjob is mostly successful. 2-14 is a fantastic tankjob. They lost the first 13 games. There just happened to be a genuinely bad team in the Jaguars (who I don't believe tanked and were just bad). I believe Adam Gase did try harder when the reality hit him that his job was all but lost. It happens in the real world too. Your back is against a corner and you have to pay a bill, study for an exam after slacking til the last minute. People put themselves in a corner with no way out, and then give theire best effort only when it's too late. That was Adam Gase coaching and winning two games this year. 

 

Nothing has come out about the Colts in 2011, that's true. It doesn't mean it wasn't a tankjob. You don't have to go 0-16 for it to be a tankjob, or a successful one at that. The professional wrestling business is the best example I can give. For 100 years, kayfabe was alive and well. The crowds bought into it until the internet proved it was scripted. I bet a lot of people had the idea it was scripted back then, and I bet they got severe backlash by fans and wrestlers alike if they expressed that opinion. That's where the NFL is, in the 1960's-1980s wrestling age. They still love it and only the hardcore fans suspect anything without any major proof revealed yet. This is not rigging games I'm accusing, it's just tankjobs, which are common in sports.

 

Let me ask you this. If a coach or player out of the league from the 2011 team admitted their was a tankjob to "suck for Luck", would you no longer be a fan of the Colts? Why is it a bad thing and why would it bother you so much? We are fans, we are meant not to know a lot of things. How we got Luck is one of them. Irsay is a businessman, he owns the Colts to make money. He's probably a nice guy, but him and NFL Coaches and players are trying to win a SB. Any team and any owner would of done that in Irsays shoes for Luck, and the Jets were absolutely in the right for trying to get Lawrence.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Just curious, what if they had started Sudfeld?

 

It would have been like Houston benching Watson yesterday. I would have been upset that Houston did not give the league and NFL fans their best effort to make for a competitive game. So my answer would be that they should have not started him. Sudfield has no ceiling. What in God's name was the urgency to get a lookout that hot mess last night ? Bring the guy in next year on your 90 man opening roster and give him snaps in practice and exhibition games.

I can appreciate your's and others that think it's Philly's right to do and play whom they want. I and others (seems to be split on this) think this is different than playoff teams holding players out on week 17

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Myles said:

It was only important for the Eagles if they lost and got the 6th pick.   I don't think they lost on purpose, but they knew that if they did, it would still be good for the team.  They may have lost if Hurts played as well.  

If the Colts were out of the playoff hunt and started Eason to see what he could do, I would be happy just as Eagles fans should be.

 

Little different than giving a start to a prospect like Eason . But that said , I just now did a little more research on Sudfield and see the Eagles did give him a 2nd round tender on a one year deal for 2020. So evidently they must actually like him a bit , which obviously softens my position on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, dw49 said:

 

It would have been like Houston benching Watson yesterday. I would have been upset that Houston did not give the league and NFL fans their best effort to make for a competitive game. So my answer would be that they should have not started him. Sudfield has no ceiling. What in God's name was the urgency to get a lookout that hot mess last night ? Bring the guy in next year on your 90 man opening roster and give him snaps in practice and exhibition games.

I can appreciate your's and others that think it's Philly's right to do and play whom they want. I and others (seems to be split on this) think this is different than playoff teams holding players out on week 17

 

I get that, but I would have been mad at the Colts for losing to Tennessee and Pittsburgh. Every team has their playoffs hopes in their own hands. 

 

And maybe I'm a little more dismissive about the playoff implications to last night's game because it was for this farce of a division, which didn't really deserve to get anyone in the playoffs. If the 6-10 Giants would have been mad that the Eagles played Sudfeld, I would suggest they look in the mirror at their bad, unworthy team.

 

Bigger picture, I get being upset about the competitive balance, but when a team is against the ropes in Week 17, hoping for other teams to help them get in, I find that kind of shrug worthy. JMO.

 

In this case, I'm not meaning to defend Pederson's decision to play Sudfeld. Not even sure I believe him, and I certainly never thought Sudfeld needed to get reps. But I do think it's interesting how hard people are going for Jalen Hurts, who I think is getting a little too much love as the potential future of the Eagles franchise. He wasn't playing well last night. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I get that, but I would have been mad at the Colts for losing to Tennessee and Pittsburgh. Every team has their playoffs hopes in their own hands. 

 

And maybe I'm a little more dismissive about the playoff implications to last night's game because it was for this farce of a division, which didn't really deserve to get anyone in the playoffs. If the 6-10 Giants would have been mad that the Eagles played Sudfeld, I would suggest they look in the mirror at their bad, unworthy team.

 

Bigger picture, I get being upset about the competitive balance, but when a team is against the ropes in Week 17, hoping for other teams to help them get in, I find that kind of shrug worthy. JMO.

 

In this case, I'm not meaning to defend Pederson's decision to play Sudfeld. Not even sure I believe him, and I certainly never thought Sudfeld needed to get reps. But I do think it's interesting how hard people are going for Jalen Hurts, who I think is getting a little too much love as the potential future of the Eagles franchise. He wasn't playing well last night. 

 

 

I agree that the Giants would be a joke in the playoffs and I stated that in this post. I also said last week that the Colts had no one but them selves to blame for missing the playoffs as they lost to Balt , Cleveland , Pitt and Tenn. Those were all AFC playoff teams and thats why they lost all the tiebreakers. Hurst was playing terribly and they probably would have lost anyway. I just thought it was crazy when that QB entered the game at that point.

I probably over reacted to this . As I mentioned in my last post , I did find where Philly gave him a one year deal at a 2nd round tender. I also had a wager on Philly plus 6.5 and was sure this guy was going to get strip sacked and throw a pick 6. So that probably ignited by displeasure.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

I'm saying tanking is hard. It's literally as hard as going undefeated to do it perfectly (both have only happened twice in NFL history). Most of the time, a tankjob is mostly successful. 2-14 is a fantastic tankjob. They lost the first 13 games. There just happened to be a genuinely bad team in the Jaguars (who I don't believe tanked and were just bad). I believe Adam Gase did try harder when the reality hit him that his job was all but lost. It happens in the real world too. Your back is against a corner and you have to pay a bill, study for an exam after slacking til the last minute. People put themselves in a corner with no way out, and then give theire best effort only when it's too late. That was Adam Gase coaching and winning two games this year. 

 

Nothing has come out about the Colts in 2011, that's true. It doesn't mean it wasn't a tankjob. You don't have to go 0-16 for it to be a tankjob, or a successful one at that. The professional wrestling business is the best example I can give. For 100 years, kayfabe was alive and well. The crowds bought into it until the internet proved it was scripted. I bet a lot of people had the idea it was scripted back then, and I bet they got severe backlash by fans and wrestlers alike if they expressed that opinion. That's where the NFL is, in the 1960's-1980s wrestling age. They still love it and only the hardcore fans suspect anything without any major proof revealed yet. This is not rigging games I'm accusing, it's just tankjobs, which are common in sports.

 

Let me ask you this. If a coach or player out of the league from the 2011 team admitted their was a tankjob to "suck for Luck", would you no longer be a fan of the Colts? Why is it a bad thing and why would it bother you so much? We are fans, we are meant not to know a lot of things. How we got Luck is one of them. Irsay is a businessman, he owns the Colts to make money. He's probably a nice guy, but him and NFL Coaches and players are trying to win a SB. Any team and any owner would of done that in Irsays shoes for Luck, and the Jets were absolutely in the right for trying to get Lawrence.

 

I disagree, on many counts. I'm shocked at some of these arguments you're making.

 

It's not hard to go winless. The reason only two teams have done it is because no team wants to winless for an entire season; they're actively trying to win games. It's not even hard to go 2-14. The hardest part about it is winning the two games, not losing the 14. This is a wild assertion you're making. 

 

You're telling me the Jets were trying to get the #1 pick, and couldn't pull it off? Yet, the Jags weren't actively trying to get the #1 pick, but accidentally went 1-15? Because it's hard to tank? This is weird. It makes zero sense. This isn't the NBA where there's a draft lottery. Just race to the bottom. 

 

Provide me some evidence that the Colts tanked in 2011. You need evidence to make this claim, otherwise it's just throwing out accusations. And without evidence, accusations should be dismissed. Otherwise, I can accuse the NFL of fixing the outcome of any particular game, and then say 'just because there's no evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen.' You don't seriously believe that's how facts are established, right?

 

This is not personal for me. There's no rule against tanking. I do think it's cheap and goes against the competitive balance and integrity of the league, and so I would not be a fan of my team doing it. But if someone actually had some evidence regarding the 2011 that held up to scrutiny, then there would be something to talk about. I'm not saying the Colts didn't tank because it would affect my fandom or because I don't want it to be true. I'm saying the Colts didn't tank because all the facts say they didn't tank. All you have is a wild-eyed conspiracy theory that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It never has, and no evidence has come to light to change that fact.

 

We know exactly how the Colts got Luck. They were a bad team that only won two games, and wound up with the #1 pick. It's not a mystery. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, dw49 said:

Hurst was playing terribly and they probably would have lost anyway. I just thought it was crazy when that QB entered the game at that point.

 

That's a big part of it for me. Leaving Hurts in the game probably doesn't change the outcome, he was doing a fine job of helping them lose the game anyway. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

That's a big part of it for me. Leaving Hurts in the game probably doesn't change the outcome, he was doing a fine job of helping them lose the game anyway. 

 

lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Superman said:

 

They're entirely baseless, and the preponderance of available evidence makes that clear. You're saying 'there's evidence we don't have access to,' and that's also baseless. The presumed existence of evidence is not evidence.

 

There are circumstantial theories that do not hold up to scrutiny. There's nothing more than that.

 

 

You don't think Adam Gase knew he was coaching for his job all year? What about when they started out 0-3, 0-6? You think he just woke up in December and said 'dang, we haven't won a game, I better start taking this seriously or else I'm gonna get fired'? He coached for his job every week.

 

If there was a directive from any level to tank for the #1 pick, the Jets would not have suddenly woke up at the end of the season to try to win a couple games. The front office could have shut down Darnold and Maye and whoever else their best players are, and there would have been nothing Gase could have done about it.

 

They tried to win every week, and were only good enough to win twice. It's that simple (Occam's razor).

 

Now, if evidence comes to light moving forward, we should examine that evidence and possibly reach a different conclusion on the matter. If Gase or his staff start leaking reports that the Jets were tanking, or players suggest the front office wasn't exactly trying to win, or anything like that, then we take a look at that. Basically, any of the things that have NOT come out about the 2011 Colts in the last nine years.

 

Also, the Eagles move last night probably wouldn't even be the most egregious "tanking" related move. Before the 2019 season, everyone was convinced the Dolphins were tanking for Tua because they got rid of a bunch of veteran players in the offseason, mostly for draft picks. They were clearly rebuilding, but then they won five games and wound up with the fifth pick in the draft. Are you telling me they foresaw Tua getting injured and dropping?

 

The Browns in 2016 was probably the most egregious example ever. If we want to say a team tanked on purpose, it was probably that team.

 

This isn't a secret, nor is it new.

The largest flaw in the Colts tanked in 2011 argument is the GM and coach who would have had to organize it got fired.  Also if they were tanking why bring Collins or Orvlovsky in?  Was Painter not losing by enough?  Also why put the top pick in the draft in jeopardy by beating the Titans and Texans?  

Like you said a simple examination of facts proves they didn’t tank.  The truth is that team was just not good.  Why that’s so hard for people to accept I don’t know.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, SteelCityColt said:

Although Pederson is no doubt complicit, this would have had to at least be signed off from above, if not originating from there. 

 

Shameful.

 

I thought we're not supposed to talk about religion here? :funny:

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

What some conspiracy theorist may come up with/believe is what may

have gone wrong for the Jets tanking for Lawrence was Gregg Williams.  His defensive calls/formations in game vs Raiders was too obvious of putting defense in position to fail. It received a lot attention/criticism from the media. 

The so called Shield was tarnished and the league frowned upon that, frowned that it was done so obviously. 

So then, maybe, jets trying do some damage control and PR then played their hearts out winning last 2 games.

Their punishment is drafting Justin Fields instead of Trevor Lawrence....which is not so bad lol.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, w87r said:

 

 

Looks like we and most of the people that cover the NFL feel that was a crap move ? All the coverage i've seen thought the move was not in the best interest of team morale or league integrity. It just didn't pass the "smell test."  Pederson had already decided not to play a core of players , so then he should have given his best effort as a coach to win that game. He stated he did and that has the vast majority of the NFL community scratching their heads. When you watching a game and all of a sudden you say "what the heck is that " , it's probably not a stretch to say Pederson moved off what was expected of his organization in the 4th quarter of a meaningful week 17 of an NFL season. If this were an rocket armed , legitimate NFL starting QB prospect , it would be a little different. This was a 27 year old noodle armed , immobile journeyman.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, dw49 said:

 

 

Looks like we and most of the people that cover the NFL feel that was a crap move ? All the coverage i've seen thought the move was not in the best interest of team morale or league integrity. It just didn't pass the "smell test."  Pederson had already decided not to play a core of players , so then he should have given his best effort as a coach to win that game. He stated he did and that has the vast majority of the NFL community scratching their heads. When you watching a game and all of a sudden you say "what the heck is that " , it's probably not a stretch to say Pederson moved off what was expected of his organization in the 4th quarter of a meaningful week 17 of an NFL season. If this were an rocket armed , legitimate NFL starting QB prospect , it would be a little different. This was a 27 year old noodle armed , immobile journeyman.

I think the talking heads wanted NY in the playoffs badly.

 

It is a bad look but I doubt the Eagles will care when they are picking at 6 and getting a stud player.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, FortheWin said:

I think the talking heads wanted NY in the playoffs badly.

 

It is a bad look but I doubt the Eagles will care when they are picking at 6 and getting a stud player.

 

 

Well , if you think Pederson did that to pick 6th instead of 9th , you agree with us that said he went against what he's expected to do according to NFL culture. Teams are not suppose to dump games to improve draft position. Those that say teams do it all the time are really wrong IMO. The Jets played hard all season as did  Jacksonville. Not saying it's never happened but nowhere like many fans believe .

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dw49 said:

 

 

Well , if you think Pederson did that to pick 6th instead of 9th , you agree with us that said he went against what he's expected to do according to NFL culture. Teams are not suppose to dump games to improve draft position. Those that say teams do it all the time are really wrong IMO. The Jets played hard all season as did  Jacksonville. Not saying it's never happened but nowhere like many fans believe .

If that is what you believe than Pederson really did just want to get a look at Sudfeld.  And Gregg Williams really did think calling an all out blitz on a Hail Mary play with 8 seconds to go was the right defensive call.

 

I believe teams tank all the time because of draft position. It is so easy to do in football because the coaching controls the game.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, FortheWin said:

I think the talking heads wanted NY in the playoffs badly.

 

It is a bad look but I doubt the Eagles will care when they are picking at 6 and getting a stud player.

 

^^^^This is a big part of all the media coverage for this.

 

Plus, if I remember right, Doug did go for a 4th and goal with Jalen Hurts to get to 21-17, down 14-17 but Jalen Hurts did not convert. I think that was the point he decided that it wasn't worth it to put Hurts in situations where he could get hurt in a meaningless game. Plus, Hurts with another off season under his belt knowing he was a starter probably converts but he is not there yet. However, with Wentz and the Eagles falling out, I wouldn't be surprised if a conversation did happen with folks above Doug to move Hurts along to the next season as the de facto starter and not risk any injury. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This wasn’t about helping the giants . It’s aboutb those players that  work their butts off every game. You didn’t see the Texans or jags just giving up. Looks like it might of got bad after with the players.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Myles said:

I think it goes further to creating a winning culture.   Getting the 6th pick will do much more for the team than winning this game would have.

I know analysts like to harp on culture, but I think it is overrated.   They said the Dolphins ruined their culture last season and by trading away good players.  They had a good season this year and have the 3rd and 18th picks in the draft.   Also two 2nd round picks.  

No. Going from 9 to 6 is not going to change things.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

This wasn’t about helping the giants . It’s about those players that  work their butts off every game.

 

 

Well, the looks of Peyton, Clark, Wayne with a perfect season slipping away against the Jets watching from the sidelines implied the same thing. Those players wanted to win badly and chances like those don't come often either, it wasn't nearly as meaningless like the Eagles game, IMO. There was more meaning to their dissatisfaction than the Eagles' players, IMO. But then, Peyton called a players only meeting and we regrouped and went to the SB. I still get mad thinking about that game.

 

Bottom line, most players work their butts off in the NFL. Past, present and future. However, coaches and GMs will still make their decisions even if players are not 100% on board with it. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, chad72 said:

 

Well, the looks of Peyton, Clark, Wayne with a perfect season slipping away against the Jets watching from the sidelines implied the same thing. Those players wanted to win badly and chances like those don't come often either, it wasn't nearly as meaningless like the Eagles game, IMO. There was more meaning to their dissatisfaction than the Eagles' players, IMO. But then, Peyton called a players only meeting and we regrouped and went to the SB. I still get mad thinking about that game.

 

I think it’s different resting starters. I mean the Steelers still came to win. The eagles were down less then a TD when Pederson did this. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

I think it’s different resting starters. I mean the Steelers still came to win. The eagles were down less then a TD when Pederson did this. 

 

Not with a perfect season on the line after half time, it is not the same. The reasoning might have been the same but there was no perfect season to be had in any other years. There were other situations in other years where we could not move up a seed and had done all we could and sat in game 16 in the Dungy-Peyton era. 

 

There is no steadfast rule saying "if this condition happens, you rest your starters; and if this happens you don't, middle of game or end of game." We are trying to spin it the way we wanted it to happen, that is the truth. Bills had clinched the No.2 seed, no need to play Josh Allen for a half, yet they did and we Colts reaped the benefits. Again, coaches decisions for their teams, I respect, whether I agree with it or not.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FortheWin said:

If that is what you believe than Pederson really did just want to get a look at Sudfeld.  And Gregg Williams really did think calling an all out blitz on a Hail Mary play with 8 seconds to go was the right defensive call.

 

I believe teams tank all the time because of draft position. It is so easy to do in football because the coaching controls the game.

 

And Greg Williams was fired hours after he called that blitz....

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, dw49 said:

 

And Greg Williams was fired hours after he called that blitz....

There is always a fall guy.

 

If you feel that teams have never ever tanked than that is fine. Your opinion.

I disagree as teams tank games every year for draft position and playoff position (resting players or trying for a lower seed for a better match up.)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, FortheWin said:

There is always a fall guy.

 

If you feel that teams have never ever tanked than that is fine. Your opinion.

I disagree as teams tank games every year for draft position and playoff position (resting players or trying for a lower seed for a better match up.)

 

I never said teams "never "tank. Just saying your Williams example is very weak. You really think this coaching staff was instructed to tank and Williams was a "fall guy " in this ? That's ridiculous. How much do you think Williams is being paid to keep his mouth shut ? Williams is a nut job and he probably wanted to end that game in a tough guy fashion with a sack . 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, dw49 said:

 

I never said teams "never "tank. Just saying your Williams example is very weak. You really think this coaching staff was instructed to tank and Williams was a "fall guy " in this ? That's ridiculous. How much do you think Williams is being paid to keep his mouth shut ? Williams is a nut job and he probably wanted to end that game in a tough guy fashion with a sack . 

I think Williams was told to call that play just like Pederson was told to play Sudfeld. The decisions come from the top.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It was nice to see Jeff Saturday defend the move.   

Pederson told the media he was going to do this.  It shouldn't be a surprise that he followed through and did it.   He got to see his back up QB in action.    

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe it was 1988 the Colts were battling for a playoff spot. Houston oilers coach Jerry Glanville had a decision to make. Does he beat the Browns at home and face the Colts at home the next week in the first round of the playoffs, or does he lose to the browns at home and go to Cleveland the following week for the first round playoff game, thus eliminating the Colts from the playoffs. Guess what good ole Jerry did??? He chose to lose to the Browns and go to Cleveland the following week, thus allowing the Colts to miss the playoffs. Anyone know what happened in that first round playoff game in Cleveland?? Houston annihilated the browns in that game something like 38-13. Glanville knew what he was doing, you see people, losing on purpose does happen, more often than folks want to admit to in professional sports. And speaking of 2011, the fact the Colts kept sending Curtis Painter out onto the field................., draw your own conclusions! God Bless Dan Orlovsky, he saved us from 0-16.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Chloe6124 said:

No. Going from 9 to 6 is not going to change things.

Being able to get the best WR in the draft is meaningless?

I disagree.   Having the 6th, 38th and 70th pick in the draft is much better than the 9th, 41 and 73rd picks in the draft.  

The Eagles either intentionally or accidentally did the best thing for the team.

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 to 6 can be a significant difference.  There are only so many Blue Chip players in draft. And if there's a blue chipper that is also in a position of need you are happy GM. 6 instead of 9 can make the difference.  Also, being closer to the top may make another team want that pick to get a player they desperately want and you can acquire more picks.

 

I don't if Pederson tanked for the 6th pick or for other reasons but 6th is better than 9th.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish I could recall the players name (I can search for the article) but a recently retired player was talking about the Lions teams that went winless and if they were tanking... he said there is no player and never will be a player that tanks regardless of what a coach or GM wants because a players only true currency is his film and they'll never put something out there that makes them look bad (and cost them money/future jobs) to help a franchise get a better pick. He also said for a team to tank they'd need to be bad enough to get a high pick which will quite possibly come with a new GM and/or head coach the next season. That newly hired coach will watch your film and see you sucking (on purpose or not) and cut you for somebody else. Given the huge roster churn that typically comes with a new regime its hard to argue.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...